Common Myths or Irrelevant Arguments Regarding Bowl Games (Long and Windy)

[The-Hack]

Every bowl season, we are treated to a familiar refrain “our bowl game is meaningless.”

As to winning a national title, sure only a couple of games can lead to that, and next season, only 6 will have that distinction.

But this is such a strange fret or complaint, because the bowl games from their inception were not intended to have such a meaning.

Instead, they were celebratory events in warm weather locations that stood on their own, allowing fans and teams to measure themselves against teams from other sections of the country, and catch some rays and vacate a little on or near January 1st.

Also, though purely “exhibitions” that for decades had no effect on polls and rankings, it allowed college football fans to focus on teams they otherwise could not watch/listen to during the season, from other conferences and/or sections of a huge nation.

Notre Dame didn’t even participate in those old “meaningless” bowl games between 1924 and 1969, when I assume the money or rankings lured them into playing.

The Fighting Irish might try “to win one for the Gipper,” in October, but not on January 1st.

I’m now 60 years of age. For decades, I watched with envy, other SEC schools playing for the simple love of the game, in places that to me sounded warm and exotic . . . especially those Sunny Florida Bowls, set up to imitate “the Granddaddy of Them All,” the Rose Bowl, in Sunny Southern California.

I loved getting to see not only SEC teams, but teams from the Pacific Northwest, California, Texas and other places in the middle of the country, and many other teams I didn’t get to focus upon during the regular season.

In the 1970’s and early 1980’s, I had not gotten to see most bowl participants during the regular season, because there were so few nationally televised, regular season try games each Saturday.

Kentucky, for example, played a regular season, nationally televised game against Georgia Tech five years before my birth in 1958. Kentucky’s next regular season nationally televised game was 17 years later, in 1975, against Jerry Claiborne’s Maryland Terrapins.

Only in the mid-1980’s, with a massive anti-trust lawsuit, and the simultaneous development of cable sports networks, were there many games available each Saturday.

BUTTT, right around Christmas time, until January 1st, each year, there was “an explosion,” of 10 to 15 Bowl games, generally nationally or regionally televised . . . and even the elders in my family who did not care for college sports . . . let the youngsters get their fill of those bowl games, especially on January 1st.

Bowl games sort of held the aura of the Kentucky Derby, the Olympics, big boxing matches and the World Series. You might not know everything about the sport, but back in radio days, and then later with only two or three accessible TV stations, big sporting events, especially on or about vacation days like Christmas and January 1st when everyone was off of work, held the nation’s attention.

An old example of what I’m saying: in World War II, at checkpoints in Europe, soldiers grilled one another on sports topics. Germans could look, dress and sound just like GI’s, but few Germans knew the “Brown Bomber” was boxer Joe Lewis, or who had won the World Series or the Rose Bowl.

Although college bowl games were truly irrelevant for the polls for much of their existence, and then extremely inconsistent regarding meaningful impact until the BCS era of the 1990’s, they were pretty big events. Kentucky’s greatest football victory was played in New Orleans in January 1st, 1951, when Bryant’s Cats snapped Oklahoma and Bud Walton’s 32 game winning steak, 13-7 in the Sugar Bowl.

That game had no impact on the rankings of that era. Yet, more than 80,000 people watched it live, and millions listened to it on national radio.

The Gator Bowl has some history: it was the first nationally televised Bowl game, IIRC, in 1955, Vandy upset Auburn in a rare match between schools of the same conference.

I’m pretty sure that the famous Woody Hays punch of an opposing player was in the Gator Bowl in the early 70’s.

So anyhow, when you see posters who are middle-aged talk about loving bowl season, it isn’t necessarily based upon the national title.

I’d like to see if we can beat an 8-4 Clemson, for the sake of beating Clemson.

I’ll watch every minute of every bowl game I can.

Can Jon Sumrall get Troy to 12 wins, again?

Can Neal Brown build on his best season at West Virginia, and get a ninth win?

Just how bad will UGA beat FSU?

Can the SEC win four of the six NYD6 bowls?

Will Iowa’s stingy defense stop an explosive LSU offense in the Citrus?

How will Mizzou fare with Ohio State?

I love bowl season.

 

[mrschwump]

Watch the reaction of the players who win Whatever Bowl and tell me the game's "meaningless."

 

[BC_Wader]

Every bowl season, we are treated to a familiar refrain “our bowl game is meaningless.”

As to winning a national title, sure only a couple of games can lead to that, and next season, only 6 will have that distinction.

But this is such a strange fret or complaint, because the bowl games from their inception were not intended to have such a meaning.

Instead, they were celebratory events in warm weather locations that stood on their own, allowing fans and teams to measure themselves against teams from other sections of the country, and catch some rays and vacate a little on or near January 1st.

Also, though purely “exhibitions” that for decades had no effect on polls and rankings, it allowed college football fans to focus on teams they otherwise could not watch/listen to during the season, from other conferences and/or sections of a huge nation.

Notre Dame didn’t even participate in those old “meaningless” bowl games until 1967, when I assume the money lured them into playing.

The Fighting Irish might try “to win one for the Gipper,” in October, but not on January 1st.

I’m now 60 years of age. For decades, I watched with envy, other SEC schools playing for the simple love of the game, in places that to me sounded warm and exotic . . . especially those Sunny Florida Bowls, set up to imitate “the Granddaddy of Them All,” the Rose Bowl, in Sunny Southern California.

I loved getting to see not only SEC teams, but teams from the Pacific Northwest, California, Texas and other places in the middle of the country, and many other teams I didn’t get to focus upon during the regular season.

In the 1970’s and early 1980’s, I had not gotten to see most bowl participants during the regular season, because there were so few nationally televised, regular season try games each Saturday.

Kentucky, for example, played a regular season, nationally televised game against Georgia Tech five years before my birth in 1958. Kentucky’s next regular season nationally televised game was 17 years later, in 1975, against Jerry Claiborne’s Maryland Terrapins.

Only in the mid-1980’s, with a massive anti-trust lawsuit, and the simultaneous development of cable sports networks, were there many games available each Saturday.

BUTTT, right around Christmas time, until January 1st, each year, there was “an explosion,” of 10 to 15 Bowl games, generally nationally or regionally televised . . . and even the elders in my family who did not care for college sports . . . let the youngsters get their fill of those bowl games, especially on January 1st.

Bowl games sort of held the aura of the Kentucky Derby, the Olympics, big boxing matches and the World Series. You might not know everything about the sport, but back in radio days, and then later with only two or three accessible TV stations, big sporting events, especially on or about vacation days like Christmas and January 1st when everyone was off of work, held the nation’s attention.

An old example of what I’m saying: in World War II, at checkpoints in Europe, soldiers grilled one another on sports topics. Germans could look, dress and sound just like GI’s, but few Germans knew the “Brown Bomber” was boxer Joe Lewis, or who had won the World Series or the Rose Bowl.

Although college bowl games were truly irrelevant for the polls for much of their existence, and then extremely inconsistent regarding meaningful impact until the BCS era of the 1990’s, they were pretty big events. Kentucky’s greatest football victory was played in New Orleans in January 1st, 1951, when Bryant’s Cats snapped Oklahoma and Bud Walton’s 32 game winning steak, 13-7 in the Sugar Bowl.

That game had no impact on the rankings of that era. Yet, more than 80,000 people watched it live, and millions listened to it on national radio.

The Gator Bowl has some history: it was the first nationally televised Bowl game, IIRC, in 1955, Vandy upset Auburn in a rare match between schools of the same conference.

I’m pretty sure that the famous Woody Hays punch of an opposing player was in the Gator Bowl in the early 70’s.

So anyhow, when you see posters who are middle-aged talk about loving bowl season, it isn’t necessarily based upon the national title.
Our ow
I’d like to see if we can beat an 8-4 Clemson, for the sake of beating Clemson.

I’ll watch every minute of every bowl game I can.

Can Jon Sumrall get Troy to 12 wins, again?

Can Neal Brown build on his best season at West Virginia, and get a ninth win?

Just how bad will UGA beat FSU?

Can the SEC win four of the six NYD6 bowls?
I
Will Iowa’s stingy iudefense stop an explosive LSU offense in the Citrus?

How will Mizzou fare with Ohio State?

I love bowl season.

Excellent post as usual. I'm in my mid 50's and being a Kentucky fan, I didn't have Bowls to look forward to until those Claiborne HOF Bowls. Still, It was a big deal around the Holiday's for us. We'd watch any football we could those times and it was exciting. For the men in my Family anyways. I miss those days of only having a few channels and listening to Keith Jackson or Chris Schenkel call a bowl game, or any CFB game for that matter. The shear number of Bowls today has caused the shine to dull in the eyes of many, but not mine. I watch everyone I can.

 

[megablue]

Most are now participation trophies.
There are too many of them.
They are not special.

 

[The-Hack]

I watch everyone I can.

I’ll watch two G5’s, and get all wrapped up in it!!

We are so inundated with all sports, today!!

Watching bowl games in 1980, was like eating pumpkin pie: you only got it for about a week, and you’d better enjoy it while you could.

 

[Ky-troutbum]

Most are now participation trophies.
There are too many of them.
They are not special.

Easy fix, only watch the games you want to watch.

 

[Johnfarrel]

Every bowl season, we are treated to a familiar refrain “our bowl game is meaningless.”

As to winning a national title, sure only a couple of games can lead to that, and next season, only 6 will have that distinction.

But this is such a strange fret or complaint, because the bowl games from their inception were not intended to have such a meaning.

Instead, they were celebratory events in warm weather locations that stood on their own, allowing fans and teams to measure themselves against teams from other sections of the country, and catch some rays and vacate a little on or near January 1st.

Also, though purely “exhibitions” that for decades had no effect on polls and rankings, it allowed college football fans to focus on teams they otherwise could not watch/listen to during the season, from other conferences and/or sections of a huge nation.

Notre Dame didn’t even participate in those old “meaningless” bowl games between 1924 and 1969, when I assume the money or rankings lured them into playing.

The Fighting Irish might try “to win one for the Gipper,” in October, but not on January 1st.

I’m now 60 years of age. For decades, I watched with envy, other SEC schools playing for the simple love of the game, in places that to me sounded warm and exotic . . . especially those Sunny Florida Bowls, set up to imitate “the Granddaddy of Them All,” the Rose Bowl, in Sunny Southern California.

I loved getting to see not only SEC teams, but teams from the Pacific Northwest, California, Texas and other places in the middle of the country, and many other teams I didn’t get to focus upon during the regular season.

In the 1970’s and early 1980’s, I had not gotten to see most bowl participants during the regular season, because there were so few nationally televised, regular season try games each Saturday.

Kentucky, for example, played a regular season, nationally televised game against Georgia Tech five years before my birth in 1958. Kentucky’s next regular season nationally televised game was 17 years later, in 1975, against Jerry Claiborne’s Maryland Terrapins.

Only in the mid-1980’s, with a massive anti-trust lawsuit, and the simultaneous development of cable sports networks, were there many games available each Saturday.

BUTTT, right around Christmas time, until January 1st, each year, there was “an explosion,” of 10 to 15 Bowl games, generally nationally or regionally televised . . . and even the elders in my family who did not care for college sports . . . let the youngsters get their fill of those bowl games, especially on January 1st.

Bowl games sort of held the aura of the Kentucky Derby, the Olympics, big boxing matches and the World Series. You might not know everything about the sport, but back in radio days, and then later with only two or three accessible TV stations, big sporting events, especially on or about vacation days like Christmas and January 1st when everyone was off of work, held the nation’s attention.

An old example of what I’m saying: in World War II, at checkpoints in Europe, soldiers grilled one another on sports topics. Germans could look, dress and sound just like GI’s, but few Germans knew the “Brown Bomber” was boxer Joe Lewis, or who had won the World Series or the Rose Bowl.

Although college bowl games were truly irrelevant for the polls for much of their existence, and then extremely inconsistent regarding meaningful impact until the BCS era of the 1990’s, they were pretty big events. Kentucky’s greatest football victory was played in New Orleans in January 1st, 1951, when Bryant’s Cats snapped Oklahoma and Bud Walton’s 32 game winning steak, 13-7 in the Sugar Bowl.

That game had no impact on the rankings of that era. Yet, more than 80,000 people watched it live, and millions listened to it on national radio.

The Gator Bowl has some history: it was the first nationally televised Bowl game, IIRC, in 1955, Vandy upset Auburn in a rare match between schools of the same conference.

I’m pretty sure that the famous Woody Hays punch of an opposing player was in the Gator Bowl in the early 70’s.

So anyhow, when you see posters who are middle-aged talk about loving bowl season, it isn’t necessarily based upon the national title.

I’d like to see if we can beat an 8-4 Clemson, for the sake of beating Clemson.

I’ll watch every minute of every bowl game I can.

Can Jon Sumrall get Troy to 12 wins, again?

Can Neal Brown build on his best season at West Virginia, and get a ninth win?

Just how bad will UGA beat FSU?

Can the SEC win four of the six NYD6 bowls?

Will Iowa’s stingy defense stop an explosive LSU offense in the Citrus?

How will Mizzou fare with Ohio State?

I love bowl season.

I can still see old Woody running onto the field with fists aflyin. He ended his career with that punch.

Every bowl season, we are treated to a familiar refrain “our bowl game is meaningless.”

As to winning a national title, sure only a couple of games can lead to that, and next season, only 6 will have that distinction.

But this is such a strange fret or complaint, because the bowl games from their inception were not intended to have such a meaning.

Instead, they were celebratory events in warm weather locations that stood on their own, allowing fans and teams to measure themselves against teams from other sections of the country, and catch some rays and vacate a little on or near January 1st.

Also, though purely “exhibitions” that for decades had no effect on polls and rankings, it allowed college football fans to focus on teams they otherwise could not watch/listen to during the season, from other conferences and/or sections of a huge nation.

Notre Dame didn’t even participate in those old “meaningless” bowl games between 1924 and 1969, when I assume the money or rankings lured them into playing.

The Fighting Irish might try “to win one for the Gipper,” in October, but not on January 1st.

I’m now 60 years of age. For decades, I watched with envy, other SEC schools playing for the simple love of the game, in places that to me sounded warm and exotic . . . especially those Sunny Florida Bowls, set up to imitate “the Granddaddy of Them All,” the Rose Bowl, in Sunny Southern California.

I loved getting to see not only SEC teams, but teams from the Pacific Northwest, California, Texas and other places in the middle of the country, and many other teams I didn’t get to focus upon during the regular season.

In the 1970’s and early 1980’s, I had not gotten to see most bowl participants during the regular season, because there were so few nationally televised, regular season try games each Saturday.

Kentucky, for example, played a regular season, nationally televised game against Georgia Tech five years before my birth in 1958. Kentucky’s next regular season nationally televised game was 17 years later, in 1975, against Jerry Claiborne’s Maryland Terrapins.

Only in the mid-1980’s, with a massive anti-trust lawsuit, and the simultaneous development of cable sports networks, were there many games available each Saturday.

BUTTT, right around Christmas time, until January 1st, each year, there was “an explosion,” of 10 to 15 Bowl games, generally nationally or regionally televised . . . and even the elders in my family who did not care for college sports . . . let the youngsters get their fill of those bowl games, especially on January 1st.

Bowl games sort of held the aura of the Kentucky Derby, the Olympics, big boxing matches and the World Series. You might not know everything about the sport, but back in radio days, and then later with only two or three accessible TV stations, big sporting events, especially on or about vacation days like Christmas and January 1st when everyone was off of work, held the nation’s attention.

An old example of what I’m saying: in World War II, at checkpoints in Europe, soldiers grilled one another on sports topics. Germans could look, dress and sound just like GI’s, but few Germans knew the “Brown Bomber” was boxer Joe Lewis, or who had won the World Series or the Rose Bowl.

Although college bowl games were truly irrelevant for the polls for much of their existence, and then extremely inconsistent regarding meaningful impact until the BCS era of the 1990’s, they were pretty big events. Kentucky’s greatest football victory was played in New Orleans in January 1st, 1951, when Bryant’s Cats snapped Oklahoma and Bud Walton’s 32 game winning steak, 13-7 in the Sugar Bowl.

That game had no impact on the rankings of that era. Yet, more than 80,000 people watched it live, and millions listened to it on national radio.

The Gator Bowl has some history: it was the first nationally televised Bowl game, IIRC, in 1955, Vandy upset Auburn in a rare match between schools of the same conference.

I’m pretty sure that the famous Woody Hays punch of an opposing player was in the Gator Bowl in the early 70’s.

So anyhow, when you see posters who are middle-aged talk about loving bowl season, it isn’t necessarily based upon the national title.

I’d like to see if we can beat an 8-4 Clemson, for the sake of beating Clemson.

I’ll watch every minute of every bowl game I can.

Can Jon Sumrall get Troy to 12 wins, again?

Can Neal Brown build on his best season at West Virginia, and get a ninth win?

Just how bad will UGA beat FSU?

Can the SEC win four of the six NYD6 bowls?

Will Iowa’s stingy defense stop an explosive LSU offense in the Citrus?

How will Mizzou fare with Ohio State?

I love bowl season.

I can still see ole Woody running onto the field with fists aflyn. He ended his career with that punch.

 

[DraftCat]

When players opt out of the bowl games to me that isn't celebratory. It's literally a game that is supposed to be Uber competitive played by back ups.

OP post may of rang true a decade ago but I no longer believe in that foolishness. When the playoffs formed it killed the "importance" of any other bowl game. Will get even worse when they go to 12 teams.

I also promise you this... 18 year olds kids do not give a crap about winning bowl games. It's now NIL and fast track me to the NFL or I bounce. That is the new state of affairs.

Go Cats and hope they win but again this all boils down to are you okay with the Gator Bowl? Or do you want to make the playoffs one day? Not to make this a thread about Stoops but we aren't going to the playoffs with Stoops at the helm.

 

[bthaunert]

I've never understood why people complain about more college football. Bring me all the bowl games you can!

 

[JHB4UK]

I've never understood why people complain about more college football. Bring me all the bowl games you can!

Amen! I'll watch every one. A game with a 7-5 MAC vs 6-6 Sun Belt might as well be the Super Bowl. Because I love CFB!!

 

[docholiday51]

So of this new age logic would seem to say no game after your first loss matters(unless you are one of about 5 teams playing college football)

Games don't matter, conference standings don't matter, just opt out after the 4th game of the year. If you get a scholarship to play college football then ,by gawd ,play college football.

There are a lot of bowl games because there is a lot of money involved. If schools don't want to participate then at season's end fold your tent and go home, or if you are 2-5 after the 7th game fold it then.

Throwing in the towel has become battle cry of the majority of a generation

 

[UKnCincy]

When players opt out of the bowl games to me that isn't celebratory. It's literally a game that is supposed to be Uber competitive played by back ups.

OP post may of rang true a decade ago but I no longer believe in that foolishness. When the playoffs formed it killed the "importance" of any other bowl game. Will get even worse when they go to 12 teams.

I also promise you this... 18 year olds kids do not give a crap about winning bowl games. It's now NIL and fast track me to the NFL or I bounce. That is the new state of affairs.

Go Cats and hope they win but again this all boils down to are you okay with the Gator Bowl? Or do you want to make the playoffs one day? Not to make this a thread about Stoops but we aren't going to the playoffs with Stoops at the helm.

Bowl games were always meant to be exhibitions.

The 1926 Rose Bowl is one of the most important games in the history of college football, because it helped put southern football on the map when Alabama won.

But the only reason Alabama was invited is because several schools declined the invite. For example, the players on Dartmouth’s undefeated team voted to decline the invite because they didn’t want to sacrifice any of their Christmas vacation.

Bowl games were always meant to simply be bonus football.

 

[PensacolaBlue]

Big difference today and “back then” is that so many opt out of playing. If your best players aren’t even part of the game, they really are meaningless…more so than ever. I personally wouldn’t travel and pay to watch two teams missing key components scrimmage each other.

 

[DraftCat]

Bowl games were always meant to be exhibitions.

Bowl games were always meant to simply be bonus football.

Which is why I watch the UK game and the CFB Semi-Finals and Championship. Do not give a crap about the other bowl games. But that's just me I do prefer the NFL if I'm being honest.

 

[DraftCat]

Big difference today and “back then” is that so many opt out of playing. If your best players aren’t even part of the game, they really are meaningless…more so than ever. I personally wouldn’t travel and pay to watch two partial teams scrimmage each other.

This.... why waste my money to watch back ups play? Maybe if I was Alabama and had 5 star back ups... but as we are UK hell nah

 

[PensacolaBlue]

Also, the bowl games should have kept the same names down through the years (some have) to maintain some historic luster. I don’t mind playing in the “sponsor” Citrus Bowl/Gator Bowl but no way do I want to play in the Pop Tarts Bowl, Dukes Mayonnaise Bowl or Gasparillo Bowl.

 

[UKnCincy]

Big difference today and “back then” is that so many opt out of playing. If your best players aren’t even part of the game, they really are meaningless…more so than ever. I personally wouldn’t travel and pay to watch two teams missing key components scrimmage each other.

You had just as many players opting out back then.

The big difference between now and then is that back then, the entire team would choose to opt out, whereas today, teams leave it up to individual players to decide whether to opt out.

 

[PensacolaBlue]

You had just as many players opting out back then.

The big difference between now and then is that back then, the entire team would choose to opt out, whereas today, teams leave it up to individual players to decide whether to opt out.

I think you are wrong.

 

[UKnCincy]

I think you are wrong.

I’m not. Look at the number of schools declining bowl invites back then.

 

[bthaunert]

Bowl games were always meant to be exhibitions.

The 1926 Rose Bowl is one of the most important games in the history of college football, because it helped put southern football on the map when Alabama won.

But the only reason Alabama was invited is because several schools declined the invite. For example, the players on Dartmouth’s undefeated team voted to decline the invite because they didn’t want to sacrifice any of their Christmas vacation.

Bowl games were always meant to simply be bonus football.

I know your thing is to bring in history from 75-100 years ago and I can respect that.

There is zero doubt that bowl games have shifted in recent years (specifically 2016 when Fornette and McCaffre sat out) from what they were for a long time (2000's, 1990's, 1980's, etc.). Compared to the previous 50 years, we are in a time where more and more guys choose not to play (and transfer prior to the bowl bc to get their name out in the transfer portal) and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

I will still watch bc I love college football, but bowl games are changing.

 

[DraftCat]

I know your thing is to bring in history from 75-100 years ago and I can respect that.

Yup.... history knows nothing of what's been occurring now. This is a entirely brand new world of sports.

We don't have to like it and many don't. It's cheapened the sport tremendously.

 

[Deeeefense]

Bowl games are not like regular season games where you are working towards a goal i.e. winning your division. With each win it takes you closer to your goal. But a non-BCS bowl game is just a stand alone event. There is nothing more you can gain after that game is played win or lose. So it's just a game. However there are a lot of benefits to playing and winning a bowl game. It's an opportunity to get national exposure for your program which can help recruiting, a chance to let younger players play, and a chance to prove your teams worth against teams from other conferences, and of course it is of interest to most fans.

One final thought, the more teams that are added to the playoffs, the less important the non-playoff bowls will become. Therefore I would not be surprised to see some of the minor bowls fold up.

 

[UKnCincy]

I know your thing is to bring in history from 75-100 years ago and I can respect that.

There is zero doubt that bowl games have shifted in recent years (specifically 2016 when Fornette and McCaffre sat out) from what they were for a long time (2000's, 1990's, 1980's, etc.). Compared to the previous 50 years, we are in a time where more and more guys choose not to play (and transfer prior to the bowl bc to get their name out in the transfer portal) and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

I will still watch bc I love college football, but bowl games are changing.

Bowl games are, and always have been, exhibition games. That hasn’t changed.

What also hasn’t changed is this: because they are exhibition games, players and schools will choose to participate in them only when they believe it is in their best interest. That’s as true today as it was in the 1920s or the 1990s.

You didn’t see opt outs in the 1990s because kids believed it was in their best interest to play. Changes in external factors, like changes in NFL salary and how NFL execs view opting out, have lead kids to make a different decision. But the consistent piece is that they were always choosing what they believed was in their best interest.

Bowl games are exhibitions and we shouldn’t pretend otherwise. I absolutely love college football, but I recognize it for what it is and always has been. To view the past as some sort of ideal is, in my opinion, a pollyanish view of the sport that’s divorced from reality.

In other words, I don’t see the point of people getting upset with kids today when they are doing what kids have always done. That doesn’t mean things today look exactly like they did in the 1990s. But it does mean that kids and schools will only play in a bowl game when they believe it’s in their best interest. That has been consistent for the past 130 years.

 

[The-Hack]

When players opt out of the bowl games to me that isn't celebratory. It's literally a game that is supposed to be Uber competitive played by back ups.

OP post may of rang true a decade ago but I no longer believe in that foolishness.

I also promise you this... 18 year olds kids do not give a crap about winning bowl games.

For some, this is true.

Ironically, though, one of the condemned newer bowls provided proof of just the opposite in 2017.

In that year’s New Mexico Bowl, when New Mexico State won its first bowl game since 1962, players, fans and coaches were reduced to tears.

I’m certain there are other examples annually, that off set some of the professional-like cynicism shown by others.

 

[3632]

Bowl games are not like regular season games where you are working towards a goal i.e. winning your division. With each win it takes you closer to your goal. But a non-BCS bowl game is just a stand alone event. There is nothing more you can gain after that game is played win or lose. So it's just a game. However there are a lot of benefits to playing and winning a bowl game. It's an opportunity to get national exposure for your program which can help recruiting, a chance to let younger players play, and a chance to prove your teams worth against teams from other conferences, and of course it is of interest to most fans.

One final thought, the more teams that are added to the playoffs, the less important the non-playoff bowls will become. Therefore I would not be surprised to see some of the minor bowls fold up.

Bowls may lose attendance but I think they will largely keep games intact on tv just because espn needs constant programming if they can make money work and they’ve put so much money into their conference deals they have to do what they can to keep the machine going. The thing that could change is payouts in the foreseeable future

 

[LosGatos]

delete, delete, delete

One final thought, the more teams that are added to the playoffs, the less important the non-playoff bowls will become. Therefore I would not be surprised to see some of the minor bowls fold up.

Although that was my initial thought, I'm now not sure it will make much difference. there are still 12 teams involved when you count the so called New Years Day bowls. They even play in the same locations.

 

[UKnCincy]

Bowls may lose attendance but I think they will largely keep games intact on tv just because espn needs constant programming if they can make money work and they’ve put so much money into their conference deals they have to do what they can to keep the machine going. The thing that could change is payouts in the foreseeable future

You’re correct about the attendance, particularly for some of the bowls.

Most people aren’t aware of this, but ESPN actually owns and operates 17 of the bowl games. Any money they make from attendance is icing on the cake for ESPN, but the main reasons they own them is because it gives them more broadcast content.

 

[backinky2018]

I agree with OP, I love college football. I'll watch every game and bet on many of them (though betting on bowl games in this era of opt outs is VERY HARD).

The only caveat is that in this age of half the teams not caring about bowls, it's hard to justify traveling to watch the team for non playoff bowls. Can you imagine going to that Music City bowl last year when we barely even tried to win?

I will give Stoops credit though, he has had the team ready and trying to win every bowl game since he has been here (except for last year's MC bowl), so hopefully he'll have the guys excited to play Clemson.

 

[truebluewildcat]

Bowl games are not exhibitions. They go on the official record as a W or L. The money wouldn't be what it is for "exhibition" games.

Bowl games are an extension of the regular season, more specifically the non-conference but oddly at the end of the season.

They blew up for a myriad of reasons over the years. Money grew, media/TV channels grew and needed something to fill relatively dead holiday season post baseball and pre basketball really mattering. Bunch of people sitting around eating, drinking in the living room. Family friends from different areas gathering some interested in SEC football, others from west coast, and mid-west...throw up a b10/SEC match up...ACC/PAC...cha ching baby...the whole Houshold is interested even if just casually.

In addition to those, I think bowl season grew in some part because the college football early season/OOC is so lacking.

Bowl season satisfies a couple of unfulfilled holes left by regular/ooc scheduling.

We get to see match ups that we never really see.

Bowl season is what the regular non-conference season should be to some degree. UGA playing FSU, Michigan playing Alabama, etc... on down the list of P5 match ups.

When do we ever get to see a UofL USC? Ole miss vs Penn St?

CBB has a bowl season, but it's early season. All the "Classics" and "Invitationals"...it kind of kicks off the year with a celebratory, parade, type of feel. Teams from different parts of the country playing one another bringing a mass appeal aspect that Northwest Tech Southeastern State doesn't. Now conference games are bigger, but still pretty regional (Another reason expansion is good...USC Mich, UGA Texas, Penn St Wash, etc...more mass appeal)

I've said before bowl season should be moved and kick off the season. Especially now that play offs are expanding to 12 and probably inevitably will expand beyond that...just incorporate NY6 in playoffs already and be done with it.

CFB now has a real deal post season with a tournament to fill that holiday season sweet spot with enough action. Move bowl season to kick off year...CFB's version of "Champions Classic" and what not.

 

[rick64]

I’m 59 years old. The 1972-73 bowl games consisted of 11 games. That’s right, 11. So are there too many bowl games now, probably. How many of them actually make money? I don’t know but I guess if sponsors keep footing the bill they’re here to stay.

 

[bthaunert]

Bowl games are, and always have been, exhibition games. That hasn’t changed.

What also hasn’t changed is this: because they are exhibition games, players and schools will choose to participate in them only when they believe it is in their best interest. That’s as true today as it was in the 1920s or the 1990s.

You didn’t see opt outs in the 1990s because kids believed it was in their best interest to play. Changes in external factors, like changes in NFL salary and how NFL execs view opting out, have lead kids to make a different decision. But the consistent piece is that they were always choosing what they believed was in their best interest.

Bowl games are exhibitions and we shouldn’t pretend otherwise. I absolutely love college football, but I recognize it for what it is and always has been. To view the past as some sort of ideal is, in my opinion, a pollyanish view of the sport that’s divorced from reality.

In other words, I don’t see the point of people getting upset with kids today when they are doing what kids have always done. That doesn’t mean things today look exactly like they did in the 1990s. But it does mean that kids and schools will only play in a bowl game when they believe it’s in their best interest. That has been consistent for the past 130 years.

I agree that bowl games being exhibitions to a point, but they still go on your win/loss and play a factor in who is the national champion. I'm also not viewing the past as some sort of ideal, as I don't have an issue with guys not playing. I think it lessens interest in games, but I also don't blame them for doing what they feel is in their best interest.

Where I do disagree with you is talking about the early 1900's as the comparative to guys sitting out today. You've brought it up in a number of posts. Because sitting out was not the norm for many years prior to 2016. That dynamic has been a major shift in recent years. Partner that with transfers leaving prior to the bowl game, which was also almost unheard of for many years, and there are a significant amount of guys missing bowl games that would never have missed in the past 50 plus years. The idea that the starting QB for a team playing in the Cotton Bowl would decide to transfer prior to the game has been unheard of for a very long time. Last years bowl game for UK was almost unwatchable due to guys opting out or decided to transfer. That's why you hear some people say they lose interest in bowl games.

The dynamic of bowl games has changed drastically compared to the last 50 years. I'm not mad about it, it just makes some games less interesting.

 

[The-Hack]

I think you are wrong.

He understated it!!

Kentucky’s team voted to refuse a bowl in Bryant’s last season at UK.

And while not a flat refusal, when the Gator Bowl offered us a slot in mid-season, 1964, we told them we were waiting on the Sugar Bowl. The Gator Boul found someone else, and Houston broke our QB’s leg, and ran the veer offense down our throats.

 

[The-Hack]

I will still watch bc I love college football, but bowl games are changing.

I never addressed whether bowl games are changing.

They have had multiple rounds of changes since they began.

Yes, a few players opt out, a problem that NIL sponsors could easily address in written contracts and payment schedules.

The point of my OP was the myth that historically bowl games had meaning beyond their individual merit. Maybe from 1985 through 1997, when there was a half-ass effort to line up the correct teams from a ranking perspective, and then the BCS, thereafter.

As for opt-outs, Notre Dame opted out of 43 years worth of bowl participation. Centre College was invited to a Florida Bowl in the late 50’s and declined. UK’s players flatly refused an invite in Bear Bryant’s final season. It was a common occurrence.

One really cool bowl game I’ll watch closely is Duke vs. Troy in Birmingham. Can the battlin’ Sumrall’s of Troy take down the great Satan?? I don’t know if the selectors consciously knew how much interest this match up would create in Kentucky. Hell, at this point, Jon Sumrall is damn near the Coach in Waiting for UK, and Duke is Duke.

 

[JHB4UK]

For those who bemoan opt outs....

 

[DraftCat]

With all due respect @The-Hack bringing up the past is largely irrelevant.

The current environment is completely different. I do commend you though for providing a historical perspective. I just don't think it applies in this case.

 

[Soupbean]

Excellent post as usual. I'm in my mid 50's and being a Kentucky fan, I didn't have Bowls to look forward to until those Claiborne HOF Bowls. Still, It was a big deal around the Holiday's for us. We'd watch any football we could those times and it was exciting. For the men in my Family anyways. I miss those days of only having a few channels and listening to Keith Jackson or Chris Schenkel call a bowl game, or any CFB game for that matter. The shear number of Bowls today has caused the shine to dull in the eyes of many, but not mine. I watch everyone I can.

I never addressed whether bowl games are changing.

They have had multiple rounds of changes since they began.

Yes, a few players opt out, a problem that NIL sponsors could easily address in written contracts and payment schedules.

The point of my OP was the myth that historically bowl games had meaning beyond their individual merit. Maybe from 1985 through 1997, when there was a half-ass effort to line up the correct teams from a ranking perspective, and then the BCS, thereafter.

As for opt-outs, Notre Dame opted out of 43 years worth of bowl participation. Centre College was invited to a Florida Bowl in the late 50’s and declined. UK’s players flatly refused an invite in Bear Bryant’s final season. It was a common occurrence.

One really cool bowl game I’ll watch closely is Duke vs. Troy in Birmingham. Can the battlin’ Sumrall’s of Troy take down the great Satan?? I don’t know if the selectors consciously knew how much interest this match up would create in Kentucky. Hell, at this point, Jon Sumrall is damn near the Coach in Waiting for UK, and Duke is Duke.

Im 62 and was waxing sentimental about this with my nephews when they came in for Thanksgiving on this very subject as we congregated to watched game after game, several at once over that weekend. I recalled a time we played Vandy on ABC in the 70s, one of the feature games that day and the first time we'd been on national TV in a while. Even playing Vandy is could not have been a bigger thrill to watch.

Now its a little saturated and even though there are some good games always on I catch myself changing back and forth but then getting a little bored with it and scanning over to Andy Griffith or something in a break for a while before coming back and saying, "Hey how did they come back?!".


But I'm all in on the bowl games, love the regional matchups and SEC vs the rest.

 

[UKnCincy]

I never addressed whether bowl games are changing.

They have had multiple rounds of changes since they began.

Yes, a few players opt out, a problem that NIL sponsors could easily address in written contracts and payment schedules.

The point of my OP was the myth that historically bowl games had meaning beyond their individual merit. Maybe from 1985 through 1997, when there was a half-ass effort to line up the correct teams from a ranking perspective, and then the BCS, thereafter.

As for opt-outs, Notre Dame opted out of 43 years worth of bowl participation. Centre College was invited to a Florida Bowl in the late 50’s and declined. UK’s players flatly refused an invite in Bear Bryant’s final season. It was a common occurrence.

One really cool bowl game I’ll watch closely is Duke vs. Troy in Birmingham. Can the battlin’ Sumrall’s of Troy take down the great Satan?? I don’t know if the selectors consciously knew how much interest this match up would create in Kentucky. Hell, at this point, Jon Sumrall is damn near the Coach in Waiting for UK, and Duke is Duke.

Similar to Notre Dame, the Big Ten essentially opted of bowl games for 53 years.

From 1922 to 1945, the Big Ten prohibited their schools from participating in any bowl games.

In 1946, the school presidents changed the conference rules to allow just one Big Ten school to play in a bowl game each year. The schools would vote each year to decide which school could play in the Rose Bowl. That rule lasted basically another 30 years.

It wasn’t until 1975 that the Big Ten began allowing their schools to freely accept bowl invites.

 

[FirewithFire]

That was an excellent write up. I still watch the Rose Parade today.

Are there too many bowls? Yeah, probably, but what else are you going to watch, the Bachelor?

To the folks bemoaning opt outs. Would you play in a game if there was even a 5% chance that you might sustain an injury that would cost you millions of dollars, and or, leave you in a desk job for the rest of your life? I would not.

One way to fix opt outs would be to state in the NIL contracts that they get so much money for playing in a bowl game. That might help some.

 

[LosGatos]

That was an excellent write up. I still watch the Rose Parade today.

Are there too many bowls? Yeah, probably, but what else are you going to watch, the Bachelor?

To the folks bemoaning opt outs. Would you play in a game if there was even a 5% chance that you might sustain an injury that would cost you millions of dollars, and or, leave you in a desk job for the rest of your life? I would not.

One way to fix opt outs would be to state in the NIL contracts that they get so much money for playing in a bowl game. That might help some.

Why do you assume that NIL contracts don't already include such a provision?

 

[JHB4UK]

Never to many bowls. Create 20 more. Who wants to watch college basketball or NBA in December!?!?